“””
Noam Chomsky: Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency.
“””
Vs the classical conservative world view in which order, even if it's unjust, is usually better for everyone, even the people on the bottom, than chaos; and that dismantling power structures, if done suddenly or without care, is more likely to result in chaos than in a new, more just, order. I've been wondering lately if there is room for the notion of a conservative anarchist, who questions hierarchy but dismantles carefully and incrementally.
I've been wondering lately if there is room for the notion of a conservative anarchist, who questions hierarchy but dismantles carefully and incrementally.
Sure! Those are the collaborationists, and are the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I'm only half-joking, see what happened to the Mensheviks in 1917-1921.
Sad but there's a lot of truth to that: if you are fighting against a nation state with an army, you have to have your own army to fight it. And on the day when you are victorious, you'll find yourself sitting on a large plot of land and people and the only intact organization around will be.. your army. And the government you form will closely resemble an army in form and function, and the high ranking members of the army will tend to become high ranking members of the new government. Hardly a blueprint for universal freedom. That's what tends to happen to violent revolutions.
The natural response would be instead of fighting a government with an army, experiment and build the structures that you would like to see, without dogma, learning as you go. When these structures solve enough problems for your community, a democratic country may peacefully transition.
Some strains of Daoist thought could be construed as a conservative anarchism, although such conservatism would be completely at odds with conservatism these days.
The definition I use is 'a system lacking a state or ruling elite.' If you want to include anarcho capitalism you probably want a more general definition though.
I think I derived this definition from David Graeber's work.
Also some people choose a definition that emphasizes the process rather than the features. Those kinds of definitions are like 'removing unjust hierarchy or domination' or something to that nature.
I would argue that definition is far too broad. I would define anarchism as a society in which the amount of power that any person can have over another person is severely limited. Not only would government have to be greatly weakened, but property rights would have to be greatly weakened, corporations, churches, political parties and all kinds of other organizations would have to be broken up and democratized.
I'm not sure if this is where you were going with this, but I think this is a subtle attempt of the author to discredit or impugn the target of the article.
They could have used the term "libertarian" or "protester" or "political objector" but they go all the way to use "anarchist" as if people making medicine to save their own lives or maintain their own autonomy somehow equates to anarchy.
This to me illustrates in a profound way many problems with health care, and to some extent, politics today: people are told by a privileged, protected elite that they are to take responsibility for their own welfare, but then if you actually take that seriously, you're branded an extremist.
The powers that be--drug companies, the FDA, the federal enforcement agencies, the pharmaceutical companies, physicians--are unwilling to open up competition to reduce their monopolies and regulatory capture. They are squeezing the last drop of blood out of people to line their own pockets, and using safety as a mantra to do so.
To me, this dynamic is so obvious and it's unclear to me why this doesn't get more discussion. People don't have any control over their healthcare, no ability to take responsibility for their own health, because they're legally unable to do so, because it's not in the financial interests of powers that be.
People lash out against homeopathy and antivacciners, but the obvious is staring us in the face: when you have no autonomy in the realm of traditional, scientifically-grounded healthcare paradigm, your only option is to reject it in favor of something else.
Same here: if people have no options to go to, they need to do it themselves, or go without medicine. People do this not because they want to, but because their back is against the wall.
The current regulatory regime, all the way from the FDA to current licensing regulations to drug enforcement, is completely and utterly broken. Not at risk of breaking, but a complete failure.
The attempt was not that subtle. IMO the author spends a considerable amount of time openly mocking Laufer, with the clear implication being that if you cannot take the man seriously how can you do the same for his ideas.
Just read the Wikipedia for Anarchism[1] and feel that it correctly reflects what it means. The one thing that is striking with the article's definition of anarchist is that it seem to refer to anarcho-capitalism (similar to neoliberalism) more than actual anarchism. It at least paints Laufer as a hypocrite if he were to identify as a "true" anarchist since "Anarchism is usually considered a far-left ideology" (Wiki).
See the references to upperclass restaurants and upperclass behaviour such as drinking champagne and eating scallops at pricey restaurants.
A common misinterpretation of the term is believing that anarcho-capitalists and anarchists are the same, they're not. They're more often opposites.
Favorite quote: "Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to."
Other favorite quote: "human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another."
Well, if you're dealing with someone on equal terms, it sort of forces you to be fair with them. It's only when you have power over someone that the option of being a total bastard is available, IMHO.
